The Right Side of the News

You have no idea what Trump wants. Again, he's rash and impulsive. He's not predictable. If you want to keep making predictions about what Trump wants then you're playing a losing game. What do you mean "they?" Iran? That would be the suspicion, but we have no evidence who it is so far, at least publicly. There's no way to know. All we can know for sure is that it will serve the best interests of Donald Trump. Well, let's hope not, but given the history of untruth in this administration I don't think we can say we know that for sure right now. Ya think? I'm sure he's busy rejecting the advice of any advisers, making decisions based upon whatever's rattling around his head at the time.--Percy

Which is based upon what serves his personal and financial interests.

Boy, you do love your pronouns. Care to tell us what "it" refers to. As Clinton would say, "It all depends upon what the meaning of 'it' is." Given that he had conversations with Trump, Giuliani, Mulvaney and Perry, it's impossible for him to not have direct knowledge of many things. And in the same conversation Trump said that he wanted Zelensky before microphones announcing investigations before he'd release the aid. There was no quid pro quo in the same way that the phone call was perfect. This has been explained to you, and ignored, so many times that this has risen to the level of a lie, as is much of what you say lately. If you've have valid rebuttal then offer it, but simply repeating what has been carefully explained many times to be untrue is lying.--Percy

Are you really this ignorant? Do you really not know what hearsay is? The word almost literally defines itself. It's what you heard someone else say about something.When Fiona Hill testified that John Bolton said he didn't want to be part of any "drug deal" cooked up by Sondland and Mulvaney, that's not hearsay. She also testified that as soon as Sondland brought up investigations that Bolton cut the meeting short, after which he made the "drug deal" comment to her. That's not hearsay. She further testified that Bolton asked her to accompany Sondland and the Ukrainians to the other conference room and report what was said. That's not hearsay.Holmes heard Trump's voice over Sondland's telephone and testified to what Trump said. That's not hearsay.Sondland testified to his conversations with Trump, Giuliani, Mulvaney and Perry. That's not hearsay. Yes, of course. You're having reading comprehension problems again. I said, "And outside the House committee testimony Bolton writes in his book..." There is no evidence that Trump ever concerned himself about foreign corruption until he got caught pulling shenanigans with the Ukraine. Only after that did he begin claiming he was concerned about corruption. According to a recent finding it was against the law. It was withheld for so long that some of the funding expired because of automatically imposed time limits, forcing Congress to have to reauthorize a portion of it. This falsity of this has been explained to you many times, and you choose to ignore it. Please either offer your rebuttal or stop repeating this falsehood. "I don't believe it," is not rebuttal, especially with your inability to tell truth from fiction.--Percy

There was an investigation into Burisma. Nobody says otherwise.There was no investigation into Hunter Biden.Nothing more to learn there.But plenty more to learn about Trump’s actions. With more coming out every day.

What people saw is not hearsay. Neither is what people heard if they can adequately substantiate it.Ready for this?Hearsay evidence is not prohibited in impeachment or trial. Federal rules of evidence do not apply. The House has the sole power of impeachment, the Senate has the sole power of trial. The only rules are the ones they create. The House or Senate can decide to disallow hearsay, but they haven't.

You still don't know what hearsay is. Had Fiona Hill testified that David Holmes told her that John Bolton said he wouldn't be part of any "drug deal" that Sondland and Mulvaney were cooking up, then that would be hearsay. But Fiona Hill testified that she heard those words directly from John Bolton himself. That is not hearsay. Clear now? I think you mean something different from what you're saying. You're incorrect to say that no one who witnessed anything testified. Everyone testified to what they witnessed. What I think you mean is that no one testified who witnessed (or had a phone conversation with or texted with) Donald Trump saying he wanted Ukraine investigations announced before he'd release any security aid or grant an Oval Office visit. If that's what you're saying then you are correct, but that's why the Senate trial needs top White House aides to appear as witnesses. Could I suggest John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo and Rudy Giuliani? Well yes, of course Trump has no sense of saying anything wrong. That's because he lacks a moral compass, any sense of right and wrong. "Perfect" is not a poor choice of words because it's hyperbole. I don't think anyone has a problem with hyperbole. "Perfect" is the wrong word because what he did was the opposite, an impeachable abuse of power. Yes, they all thought the phone call was so perfect that they moved it to a more secure server. If you want to give hate a prominent role in your emotional repertoire then it's beyond anyone's power to stop you, but please stop accusing everyone else of hate. The truth has been explained to you many times. You've never acknowledged it, never attempted to rebut it, and I doubt repeating it again will make any difference. You obviously don't care about what is true, only about repeating your fictions over and over. The irony is strong in this one. It's understandable that those given to lies might be disturbed by the truth.--Percy

What Fiona Hill heard from Bolton is hearsay. If Bolton says it directly it's not hearsay.

JonF's response about Burisma skipped over some details, but you never pay the truth any attention anyway, so it would have been a waste of time to get into those details. Suffice to say that if you have reason to doubt what we think we know about the Bidens and Burisma, this is the time to mention it. Without that reason to doubt there's no reason to open up an investigation, besides that Trump wants it in order to hurt Biden politically.So what's the reason?--Percy

So Scott Adams, author of Dilbert, the source of Percy's Admin avatar "catbert" wrote that Bolton's manuscript clears Trump interesting. Ukraine DID interfere in the election so that still has to come out but Adams' point is good that since Trump believes it his request of Zelensky was perfectly right. Actually Politico showed that Ukraine did interfere and a court case in Ukraine even prosecuted people for it, so the denial of this is nutso.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And he’s wrong. Even if he fell for the conspiracy theory (which would be dumb) Trump did not have the power to withhold aid - according to the GAO. And conducting extortion through his personal lawyer rather than involving the appropriate agencies is hardly proper either.

There is reason to doubt the so-called investigation of Burisma. Wait and see.

Wow! You've raised confusion to new heights.So in your mind if Bolton says to Fiona Hill, "I don't want to be party to any drug deal," then if Hill testifies in court, "John Bolton told me that he did not want to be party to any drug deal," then that's hearsay. Do I understand you correctly?So if I'm correct so far then in your mind the only thing that would constitute direct testimony is if Bolton testified in court, "I told Fiona Hill I did not want to be party to any drug deal." And Fiona Hill could not confirm Bolton's testimony because her recounting of what he said would be hearsay. In fact, no one could ever confirm anyone's testimony of what was said.Do I have that right? Is that what you truly believe? Think about this now. Don't be hasty.--Percy

No matter what Trump believed, true or not, he attempted to extort Ukraine for his personal benefit and obstruct Congress. His motivation doesn't matter.

Oh he absolutley did no such thing. He has an obligation as President to be concerned with corruptions in nations we send aid to.Mortivation doeasn't matter? Good grief, motivation is the whole point. What planet do you live on?And as for obstruction of Congress I heard that Ken Starr blew that one out of the water this morning.